click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
coalitions. russia will be a big player. and on iran, what are our international allies, partners, the guys we do business with at the u.n. -- where is everyone else prepared to be before we go forward? host: on russia, this is the "wall street journal." the defeat was a relief in russia because mitt romney had called moscow the number one political foe of the u.s. it was added that mr. vladimir putin sent a telegram to mr. obama that the kremlin said was secret until the u.s. revealed the contents. dmitry medvedev posted a "congratulations" on twitter. so that was from russia. another foreign policy issue is china. here is the "new york times." warm words from china with a subtext of warning. robust relationships with china while maintaining traditional military ties with the u.s. we do not want to be forced to choose between beijing and washington but what is going on here? guest: it has to be looked at in the context of the campaign that just ended. china emerged as a symbol -- weaknessy, obama's overseas, his inability to stand up to this rising asian power. the united states and china
from the beginning. i thought he may have voted the same way barack did. he went from labeling russia, which he recently called the soviet union, labeling russia are most significant geopolitical foe -- let me tell you something, he also was opposed to the new start treaty which every single solitary former republican secretary of state, republican national security adviser, republican secretary of defense was for. he was against it. he said he would have never supported it. all of a sudden -- i tell you. it is amazing. we can work with russia, we can be very close with russia. [laughter] he went from harshly criticizing us to saying we will and we will turn over for responsibility to the afghan military at the end of 2014. [applause] he went from saying we should never have set a timetable, he would not do that. i had a debate, too, with ryan. [applause] in my day, he was talking about more troops in the east, more americans would be there -- we should not have set a date. then along comes romney -- my generation has gone on the wings of a snow white dove, preaching -- preaching love
, the stans, russia, china, all the countries that have interest in afghanistan. their calculus would be affected by our signing a bilateral agreement. >> so i think it is a very important answer. i have the same feeling. i think islamabad is the first capital that would be affected by the bilateral agreement. tying some elements of the pakistani government to terrorist groups. they are hedging their bets for what happens the day after we leave. if we're not leaving presumably, they lose that argument. but, you know, there is -- every situation is different. i can't help but relate this to iraq. nobody wanted our discussions with the iraqi government for a presence in iraq after our troops left to fail more than iran did. and in fact, they were working on that. the fact that it did fail and we have no continuing presence in iraq i think is part of the reason why iran's influences spread there and so incidentally has al qaeda re- emerged again. i think those are warnings to us about how important it is to do exactly what you have called for, which is to have a good -- much smaller but
. today's agenda includes debate on the rule for a russia trade bill. and in 45 minutes, we'll be joined by republican representative ron paul of texas, a member of the foreign affairs committee. he'll take your questions about today's hearing on the attack on the u.s. consulate in libya. at 8:40 eastern, you'll hear about the fiscal cliff from independent senator bernie sanders of vermont, a member of the budget committee. also, jennifer tolbert of the
have serious and continuing differences with russia -- on syria, missile defense, nato enlargement, a human-rights, and other issues. so we have to take a smart and balanced approach going forward. we need to continue expanding our engagement with russia, but with very clear rise about where we draw our lines. we also have to engage with a set of the emerging democratic powers like brazil and mexico, india and indonesia, south africa and turkey, that are exercising greater influence in their region and on the world stage. the strategic fundamentals of these relationships, shared democratic values, common economic and security priorities, are pushing our interests and do closer convergence. this is reflected in the broad strategic dialogue we have launched with the emerging powers. the key going forward will be to encourage them to leave behind the outdated politics of the past and take up the responsibilities that come with global influence, including defending our shared democratic values beyond their borders. let me turn to the third element of our agenda, what i call economic st
, or is this your conclusion? >> this is the conclusion gary . >> take your time -- i did not mean to russia that much, but i thought you had another point. >> as national nonprofits, we have national -- often fail. we have frequently been too hesitant. more damage of the militants -- damaging our the militants to a pandered to their members with alarmist rhetoric, misinformation, fight talk, and all this is encouraging the search for a bad guy, somebody to blame, thereby pouring gasoline on the fires of the people that are looking to us for leadership instead of helping them with messages of acceptance, respect, openness to a pact that may be different from what we expected, and helping them get the services they need. i ask this administration, as well as our community, to lead and to help these constituents in such a way that was not just be acceptable to the polls or pander to any ill-conceived notion that an injustice was done or that there was something in the water. i cannot and dstress enough my disappointment that the conversation on vaccines is still evidence. >>t. in respect to ea
they were born and raised in russia and they inherited a lot of money and they are actually communists. so all the republican party kind of liens on their side. money is not given away -- some people just give money away or they loan it to you, but if you are going to give money for a republican to win, to buy a governor or a president, there is something you want back. all of these republicans better take in mind that they could be voting for a communist which is a movement coming into our country. the documentary says -- host: where did you see the documentary? caller: national geographic. from noon until 6:00, and half of it was about the koch brothers. but you saw it on the national geographic jenna? larry sabato, any response? guest: i am just on to say this. i never met the koch brothers and i never -- never corresponded with them. i've got news for you. they are not communists. i am pretty sure of that. so, let me just correct the record, and i think we should go on. host: how often do voters split tickets in virginia? guest: a very good question. virginia was once the ticket splitt
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)